Among the thornier issues facing intrepid seekers of Catholic truth in our day concerns the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration and whether or not it’s truly valid. Given that the rite was promulgated by the same scoundrel that gifted the world with the Novus Ordo Missae, it only makes sense that those drawn to tradition would be moved to question its validity.
That said, not all self-described “traditionalists” are intrepid as many appear scared to death to actually examine the issue for fear of what they might discover, refusing to consider even the remote possibility that the rite is invalid.
Our Lord would never let His Church become nearly depleted of bishops and priests, thus making valid sacraments extremely difficult if not impossible for the faithful to find, they insist, as if in possession of intimate knowledge concerning the limits of what Our Lord will allow. Ironically, many of these same persons readily accept the notion that the one true Church of Christ, established for our salvation, sometimes authoritatively dispenses the poisonous food of error to His flock.
This brand of head-in-the-sand trepidation is especially common among those who are terrified to apply the requirements for membership in the Mystical Body of Christ to Francis since doing so necessarily leads to the realization that Jorge Bergoglio doesn’t even come close to qualifying – something that even the heretics recognize.
Evidently, for persons such as these, reaching the unavoidable conclusion that Jorge isn’t a Catholic at all is more frightening than assuming that he’s the Holy Roman Pontiff who just so happens to be leading souls to Hell.
The alternative, of course, would be to acknowledge that the Chair of Peter is presently empty, which would be tantamount to branding oneself with the “Scarlett S,” a fate far worse in their minds than publicly waxing Protestant – that is, arbitrarily manipulating immutable Catholic doctrine to fit the situation du jour – thus maintaining one’s place in Club Resist-the-Pope.
[WARNING: If this describes you, it may be best to hop off now lest you break out in hives.]
For the bold and the brave who are still with me, we will examine the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, attempting to do our best to discern the truth, committing ourselves to following it wherever it may lead. As for the 1968 Rite of Ordination to the Priesthood, we’ll examine it separately in a future post.
Before we begin, let it be said that persons of goodwill are likely to draw differing conclusions, i.e., it seems to me that disagreement is unavoidable. Unlike the matter of Bergoglio’s status vis-à-vis membership in the Church – either he is or he isn’t – this topic isn’t quite so black and white.
In fact, it’s not even necessary for us to definitively conclude one way or the other if the rite under consideration is valid. If positive doubt exists with respect to its validity, this alone is enough to obligate one to treat it as if it certainly is invalid.
To be clear, positive doubt is a higher bar than viewing the rite with suspicion simply because the modernist Montini promulgated it, or because so many alleged bishops are raging heretics who have not the Catholic faith. This issue does not hinge on whether or not Montini was a true pope at all; a schismatic Orthodox Patriarch could produce a valid Rite of Episcopal Consecration.
The question here comes down to the substance of the rite.
At this, let’s get on with it…
In my reading and research on this topic, the resource most often recommended by those who believe the rite to be invalid is an essay by the late Fr. Anthony Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, i.e., there appears to be something of a consensus that this essay offers one of the most compelling cases in favor of that position. For this reason, we will focus on the arguments put forth in that text.
Fr. Cekada’s essay was specifically written to rebut the arguments put forth by the SSPX in 2005 in favor of validity, an about face from the position it previously held. For this reason, he writes quite a bit about how the new rite compares to certain ancient Eastern Rites that the Church approved long ago. For our purposes, however, we will focus on the “principles that are used to determine whether a sacramental form is valid” as presented by Fr. Cekada, who begins by defining the matter and form of the sacraments as follows:
Matter: some thing or action your senses can perceive (pouring water, bread and wine, etc.)
Form: the words recited that actually produce the sacramental effect (“I baptize you…” “This is My body…,” etc.)
He goes on to explain:
Each sacramental rite, no matter how many other prayers and ceremonies the Church has prescribed for it, contains at least one sentence that either Catholic theologians or authoritative Church pronouncements have designated as its essential sacramental form.
NB: This is the very heart of the matter – the essential sacramental form – with the question being: Does the 1968 Rite reflect a “substantial change” from the traditional rite? If so, then it is invalid.
Citing two pre-conciliar manualists, Fr. Cekada defines “substantial change” as follows:
This occurs “when the meaning of the form itself is corrupted… if the words would have a meaning different from that intended by the Church.” Or put an- other way: If the form “is changed in such a way that the meaning intended or willed by Christ is no longer completely and congruently expressed through it.”
Fr. Cekada goes on to contrast this with “accidental change,” which is not to be misunderstood as a “mistake” but rather as a change in appearance only, i.e., different words that convey the same meaning, in which case the sacrament remains valid. He then, for the sake of clarity, rephrases the question at hand:
What specifically are we looking for in the new rite of episcopal consecration? What must the words of a form for conferring Holy Orders express?
Pius XII, in his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, laid down the general principle when he declared that for Holy Orders these must “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost.”
Fr. Cekada elaborates:
Note the two elements that it must univocally (i.e., unambiguously) express: the specific order being conferred (diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy) and the and the grace of the Holy Ghost. [Emphasis by Fr. Cekada]
So we must therefore ascertain whether the new form is indeed “univocal” in expressing these effects.
Now that we have established the rule by which validity is to be measured, we are ready to conduct a direct comparison between the essential sacramental form of the traditional rite and that of the 1968 rite. Beginning with the traditional rite, Fr. Cekada informs us that “the essential sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy” is as follows:
Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.
Fr. Cekada then explains [with emphasis his own]:
This form univocally signifies the sacramental effects as follows:
(1) “The fullness of Thy ministry,” “raiment of all glory” = power of the Order of episcopacy.
(2) “The dew of heavenly anointing” = grace of the Holy Ghost.
“The question,” Fr. Cekada repeats, “is whether the new form does the same.”
According to Fr. Cekada, “the dispute over the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration centers” around its essential sacramental form. He then sets the stage for its examination as follows:
Question: Does the new sacramental form univocally signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order (the episcopacy) and the grace of the Holy Ghost?
These are the criteria Pius XII laid down for the sacramental form. Here again is the new form of Paul VI to which we will apply them:
“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the un- ceasing glory and praise of your name.” [Emphasis by Fr. Cekada]
Fr. Cekada begins by saying, “The form does seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost.” He quickly adds, however:
But “governing Spirit”? Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern. Can such a term univocally signify the power of Order conferred — the fullness of the priesthood?
The expression governing Spirit — Spiritus principalis in Latin — is at the heart of the dispute over the validity of the new rite, for if it does not signify the fullness of the priesthood that constitutes the episcopacy, the sacrament is invalid.
Fr. Cekada went on to narrow the question at hand concerning the essential sacramental form of the new rite, asking: Governing Spirit = Episcopacy? His conclusion:
Spiritus principalis can mean many things, but the “power of Order” proper to the episcopacy isn’t one of them.
He later states:
The expression governing Spirit is not univocal — that is, it is not a term that signifies only one thing as Pius XII required.
For this reason, Fr. Cekada concludes that the new rite is invalid, “absolutely null and utterly void.”
Are Fr. Cekada’s arguments cogent, his conclusion reasonable? Does his examination engender positive doubt? This is something that the reader must determine for him or herself.
In my own attempt to make sense of the situation, I decided to return to the traditional rite – the rite in force when Pius XII issued Sacramentum Ordinis – with the idea in mind that it represents a “gold standard” (so to speak) for what a “univocal” expression of “the “power of Order proper to the episcopacy” looks like.
As noted, it reads:
Complete in thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.
There can be no doubt, as Fr. Cekada stated, that “the fullness of Thy ministry” and “raiment of all glory” speaks to the power of the Order of episcopacy, and “the dew of heavenly anointing” refers to the grace of the Holy Ghost. This much is beyond any and all dispute.
The thing that stands out to me the most, however, is that while Holy Orders, the Office of Bishop, and the grace of the Holy Ghost are referenced in the traditional formula, none are specifically and directly mentioned in the text at all.
Is this problematic? No, of course not.
The rite takes place within the context of a Catholic liturgy. As Catholics, we know very well that Our Lord’s ministry as Priest, Prophet, and King is exercised in its fullness in the episcopate. We also know very well that it is the Holy Ghost who sanctifies and anoints the bishop in the sacrament of Orders. In other words, the rite speaks in a language and with expressions, including metaphors (like the dew of heaven), that are familiar enough to the Catholic faithful that we are easily able to decipher their underlying meaning in order to understand precisely what is taking place.
In his evaluation of the new rite, Fr. Cekada’s lengthy treatment of its essential sacramental form focused almost entirely on the phrase “governing Spirit,” the meaning of which he questioned by pointing out that “Lutheran, Methodist and Mormon bishops also govern.”
Now, that may be true, but not even the heretic “bishops” themselves, much less the Mormons, believe that they do so by the power of the Holy Spirit. They neither believe in, nor receive, Holy Orders at all. Certainly, Catholics are not confused on this point. In any event, what a non-Catholic might imagine to be the case is utterly irrelevant, what they do or believe sheds exactly no light on the question at hand.
At this, let us recall what the essential sacramental form of new rite states in full:
So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.
Looking at this sentence without bias, it must be acknowledged that the “governing Spirit” is essentially defined in the text itself, we are given to understand that this refers to the Spirit received by Jesus Christ as true man by God, the same Spirit given by Our Lord to the Apostles.
Is there any room for doubt that being conferred here is the grace of the Holy Ghost? No, of course not. In fact, the “Spirit” (capital “S”) is mentioned by name twice in the text. I’d say that it does more than merely “seem to signify the grace of the Holy Ghost” as Fr. Cekada suggests.
Is the phrase “the dew of heavenly anointing” somehow more explicit, especially in light of the fact that the “Spirit” is not specifically mentioned by name? I genuinely fail to understand how anyone can reasonably insist that it is, even though persons for whom I have a great deal of respect have concluded otherwise.
Does “the dew of heavenly anointing” express something that the new formula omits or contradicts, or does the 1968 rite convey the same intent (imparting the grace of the Holy Ghost) using different words?
The answer in my view is rather obvious, it is the latter.
As for the end for which the grace of the Holy Ghost is being given in the new rite, Fr. Cekada overlooked the phrase “the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles.”
Just as every Catholic knows full well that “the fullness of Our Lord’s priestly ministry” as mentioned in the traditional rite refers to the episcopacy, so too do we know perfectly well that the grace bestowed on the Holy Apostles by Christ – which gave them the power to govern and to establish the Church throughout the world – continues in the bishops. We call the bishops Successors to the Apostles for this very reason.
As such, I do not find the argument that the traditional rite univocally expresses something that the new rite fails to convey very convincing. We can argue all day long about which one is “better” than the other, but that’s another matter altogether. As it is, the essential sacramental form of both the traditional rite and the new rite could have been worded to say much more than they do, elaborating in greater detail precisely what is taking place.
We need to be clear, however, that the essential sacramental form of the rite is not meant to serve as a self-contained catechism. In the present case, its purpose is to “univocally signify the sacramental effects — that is, the power of the Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost” (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis).
If the essential sacramental form of the traditional rite is a prime example of a “univocal” expression of the sacramental effects of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, then one is hard pressed to dismiss the new formula as being less so.
So now you know what I believe and why I believe it. You won’t find me insisting that anyone else agree. Hopefully I’ve given you the information necessary to make up your own mind on the matter.
If nothing else, this post should put to rest the unfounded notion that “sedevacantism” – that is, the recognition that the Chair of Peter is empty, regardless of how long – necessarily includes the belief that the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is invalid. One obviously does not follow the other.
Left unaddressed in this post, as well as in Fr. Cekada’s treatment, is the matter of intent:
In order for a sacrament to be valid, matter and form alone are not enough, the minister must intend to do what the Church does.
Given the widespread dearth of Catholic faith among those claiming to be priests, bishops, and even pope, it is not inconceivable in the least that intent may be lacking in many instances. This, however, is another subject for another day.
